Here in this post I want to interact with another one of her theological arguments against Biblical inerrancy:

Likewise, people have translated “inspired by God” to mean “God-breathed” to equal “inerrant”. But God first breathed into Adam, and he certainly was not inerrant!

Here we see how the writer thinks that since Adam was God breathed and erred, therefore the Bible being God breathed cannot be inerrant. I think this warrants a closer look.

The passage that teaches that the Scripture is God breathed comes from 2 Timothy 3:16. We must remember that we need to consider the context of the passage in weighing any arguments concerning whether the Bible has error or not.

Somethings to unpack with what our writer said: “people have translated ‘inspired by God’ to mean ‘God-breathed’ to equal ‘inerrant’.”

It is somewhat awkward to say “people have translated ‘inspired by God’ to mean ‘God-breathed.” The Greek word is θεόπνευστος. θεόπνευστος is a compound word made up of “God” (the “θεό” in θεόπνευστος) and “breathed” (the “πνευστος” in θεόπνευστος). Isn’t more accurate to say people have translated the more literal “God-breathed” to the phrase “inspired by God?” Note I don’t object to the translation “inspired by God” per se although in my philosophy of translation one should try to be as literal as possible in order for the readers/listeners to ask what does this all mean and therefore the student of God’s Word and teacher then unpack it.

She goes on to say that these people take “‘God-breathed’ to equal ‘inerrant’.” I don’t know any translation that translate 2 Timothy 3:16 as “inerrant.”

I’m always amaze at liberal caricature of the position of those who hold to biblical inerrancy. The scholarship defending Inerrancy do not merely assert ” ‘God-breathed’ equal ‘inerrant.'” Those articulating and defending biblical inerrancy employ a theological method that considers the larger part of what Scripture has to say about Scripture and not just an argument from 2 Timothy 3:16 that “‘God-breathed’ equal ‘inerrant.'”

She then goes on to note that Adam was himself created by God who breathed into Adam’s nostril (Genesis 2:7). Of course we know Adam can err and did err. The implied argument here is that the Bible being God breathed must also be errant.

Remember the reason why we know Adam can err is because the Bible tells us so. After Genesis 2:7 tells us how he was created by the breath of God in Genesis 3 we read of the account of Adam’s fall. But do we also read of the same thing in the Bible which states the God-breathed Scripture has “fallen?“

Remember we already looked at her only positive case from a verse in 2 Timothy 4:13 to try to show the Bible itself teaches the Bible is errant and we have already demonstrated how much problems there was in her case there.

There’s an irony here: She makes it clear that she does not like those who assert ” ‘God-breathed’ equal ‘inerrant” in 2 Timothy 3:16 but then she goes ahead to do the exact same thing when she asserted ” ‘God-breathed’ equal ‘errant.‘”

Obviously she is here committing a fallacy of equivocation in assuming that the same way God breathed in Genesis 2:7 is the same way He breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16.

If she remains steadfast in her equivocation fallacy, should we also assume that God-breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16 must also mean:

That Scripture, as what comes out of His mouth, must always be the wrath of God because of Psalm 18:8?

That the stars were created by the Bible since His breath created stars in Psalm 33:6?

Ultimately we must ask: Was Paul’s intention in talking about Scripture being “God-breathed” in 2 Timothy 3:16 to emphasize the Scripture is errant?

Nowhere does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states that the Scripture being God breathed is errant.

Likewise the rest of the context of 2 Timothy 3:16 does not state that Scripture is errant, whether in the immediate periscope, the chapter of 2 Timothy 3 or the rest of the Book of 2 Timothy.

2 Timothy 3 does presupposes error, but not in the Bible but God’s people. In fact, the Bible is not being presupposed as erroneous since in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it is the tool for the man of God to rebuke and correct those in error.

Like this:

Related

22 Responses

Do you think people are more confused than ever in history or is it because of the internet, we get to read all the confusion and it seems overwhelming? One thing for sure, this post convinced me of the inherent fallen nature of human beings…I’m also, glad that God promises to preserve His Word because if it were left up to us, it wouldn’t have lasted one day.

Pam, I think it is probably a mixture of both although the way bad ideas spread online doesn’t help. I don’t know if would agree with me but sometimes the most popular false teachings are the most foolish and not necessarily the most sophisticated form of false teachings.

There’s a lot ignorance out there despite all the information we have access to. People know nothing about church history, for the most part and don’t even know which books of the Bible a history. There are many wolves out there and they don’t have to be sophisticated.

Even if we were to take the comparison between Adam and Scripture as both “God breathed,” in the case of Scripture, it was the writings, not the writers that were “God-breathed” and therefore, once they were written, they were either true or false, but the case would not change over time. In the case of Adam, even if his being “God breathed” meant without error, since he was a living person, it was possible for him to change from the state of being inerrant to errant. Either way her argument fails.

An inerrant God made an inerrant Adam with a free will. Inerrant Adam, with a free will, sinned and became errant thus making all of mankind errant.

An inerrant God gave errant man an inerrant Word. In many cases errant man will take God’s inerrant Word out of context making the context of the Word errant, but the original will forever remain inerrant.

Although I would use the word “will,” over the word “free will,” I get your point Patrick and think you hit it on the head that the Word is inerrant, though we may err in so many ways, from misinterpretation, unwilling to obey God, etc. Still as you said, the Word of God, “the original will [play on words? =)] forever remain inerrant.” Thank you for your input!

So, the basic premise of the other blogger’s argument is that God screwed up?

Ok, got it.

There’s a whole lot more unsound thinking there than just the inerrancy of Scripture. The insinuation is that God may have breathed life and a soul into Adam, but lacked the power to have created Adam perfect.

As Patrick pointed out, God did not make a mistake. God did create Adam in that perfect state, but gave him the free will and choice to obey or not obey.

The implication of that other argument is that God meant to make everything perfect, but was not able to. Which would make Him perfect, errant. Wow, now that is a can of worms being opened up for sure.

Wally, you are right that this error in believing the Bible has err opens up a whole can of worms. I sometimes think of doctrines of theology as strings, interwoven with other strings. Pulling and trying to remove one will also undo other strings and parts of the fabric. Doctrines matter and the implications of attacking biblical doctrines tend to produce bad effects in other areas of theology.

I had someone tell me this week that God could make an imperfect book if He wanted to therefore the Bible is not inerrant. Not only does this insult a God who cannot do wrong even He wanted to, it opens the door for all kinds of flash teaching.

Regardless, flirting with any kind of idea that the Bible is not inerrant is a deadly mistake.

I agree James, it is a slippery slope. Once we open the door, who then decides what is correct and what is not? Then it is humans deciding, or visions, or what side of the cup the tea leaves swirl in.

Simplicity works. It says what it says, and that is that. Now, of course we all don’t agree on what it means always and that is fine and dandy. But that is not the same as disagreeing over whether The Bible is actually God speaking to us.

Have a great day of worship today James. It’s 5th Sunday so we stay all day until early afternoon, have fellowship, and all of that.

It seems like that is a fallacious comparison akin to saying God made people and people lie, sohow can we trust his word that he made. The comparison to Adam doesn’t add up in my mind. In fact, a lot of the logic used to show the scripture as errant seems self-defeating. People say the believe God, love God, trust God and yet they want to say the Bible (by which they have come to know God) is not really from Him as though God couldn’t deliver us His Word. (Sigh)

Elihu,
“The comparison to Adam doesn’t add up in my mind.”<–It doesn't add up in my mind either. I think the person is trying too hard to try to make the Bible affirm an errant Bible. I think you are right on with how self-defeating this position is. I appreciated you reading this post and commenting by the way!